The resurrection of Jesus is based are first hand evidence from multiple sources. Do you have an event with better documentation than this one that is over a thousand years old?
There are thousands of such events. Consider for example the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. Pliny’s account was written by an actual eyewitness, unlike the “multiple sources” you’re thinking of. And of course there’s all the physical evidence.
1 Like
Pliny’s account. What other documentation exists? How many independent sources?
From Iris: When did Vesuvius erupt the evidence for and against.
But like most other ancient texts preserved to us, Pliny’s letters only survive through copies made in the Middle Ages. Due both to human error and to changes made deliberately by medieval scribes, today we are often faced with slightly different versions of the same ancient text.
You asked for one with better documentation. One eyewitness account is better than none. And I once again direct you to the physical evidence.
And there is no doubt that Pliny’s account actually was written by Pliny, so your attempts to attack it are foolish.
2 Likes
Based on your assertion? I showed you that all you can see is documentation from other documentation. What you are reading is not directly from an eye witness. I agree that it is reasonable evidence but to say it is superior to the documented evidence of the resurrection is a pretty iffy claim.
A single eye witness is better than the direct evidence of multiple sources?
We’re talking about medieval copies of copies of a document actually written by Pliny. What you have cited is a mention of errors introduced by copyists, but it’s not a claim that the original wasn’t Pliny’s. So yes, it’s an eyewitness account, as the Gospels are not.
What do you mean by “direct evidence”? Yes, eyewitness accounts are better than hearsay. Physical evidence is of course better, and we have copious such evidence for Vesuvius, none for the resurrection.
If you don’t like Vesuvius, we could talk about Alexander or Augustus or many other ancient folks, all much better attested than Jesus.
2 Likes
It’s not an eye witness account. It’s a document from 1500 years after the event. End of story.
What I don’t like is unsupported claims.
Then you agree that there are no eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection, and in fact no eyewitness accounts of just about anything, given that you have never seen the handwritten (by the author) manuscripts of just about anything you have read.
Nonsense. All your claims are unsupported. You love unsupported claims so long as they’re claims you want to believe.
4 Likes
(almost spits coffee)
Bill’s on a mission to destroy every Irony Meter on the planet. 
4 Likes
Thats right. Yet the evidence is compelling.
Thanks. A perfect example of what I just said: “All your claims are unsupported. You love unsupported claims so long as they’re claims you want to believe.” You refuse to believe evidence that Pliny wrote a letter about the eruption of Vesuvius, yet you believe your unsupported claim that there’s compelling evidence of your unsupported claim about the resurrection.
1 Like
Now you are reverting to exaggeration. Why? Did I say that I did not believe the evidence of Vesuvius? In fact I said the opposite.
No, what you said was that you don’t believe that the account of the eruption was written by Pliny.
What do you mean by “documented evidence”? Do you mean that there are documents claiming that the resurrection happened? Or do you mean something more? If the former, I have documents claiming that Gollum destroyed the One Ring by falling into the Cracks of Doom, and those documents were translated directly from the Red Book of Westmarch, part of which was written by eyewitnesses.
1 Like
Where did I say this?
Here:
So now you’re saying that the account was in fact written by Pliny, from which I suppose we can conclude that you deny he was an eyewitness. Or not; at this point you have hopelessly muddled your claims.
I am simply stating a fact. I have made no comment on whether the document was written by Pliny. Your claim of superior evidence based on an eye witness account is bogus. This is rhetoric and not looking at the quality of the evidence objectively.
Bill’s all out assault on the world’s Irony Meters continues unabated.
You have trouble distinguishing facts from opinions, and you have trouble understanding the meanings and implications of things you say. It’s hard to discuss anything with you, for those and other reasons. Nevertheless, I persist.
When you say “It’s not an eye witness account”, you are necessarily claiming one of two things: a) Pliny didn’t write it or b) Pliny wasn’t an eyewitness. In contrast, there are few if any scholars who think that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by the disciples of those names, and the other two writers are not even claimed to be eyewitnesses.
2 Likes
I am simply claiming what you are reading was not produced by an eye witness. Does this mean the document did not come originally from Pliny…of course not.
Paul documented eyewitness accounts from Peter and James. Does this mean Peter did not witness the resurrected Jesus? Of course not.
It simply is stating the evidence was not documented directly in writing by Peter.
Oops.